| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it will not have escaped the attention of noble Lords that the Bill will give new powers to Scottish Ministers. Some of them, so far as I can see, are almost independent of the Secretary of State. Noble Lords may be aware that the Bill has already been the subject of discussion in the Scottish Parliament. On that occasion a member of my party raised that very point. In striving to answer poverty, the absence of legislation on corruption, such as the OECD convention, is a serious weakness. I raise that point merely to draw to the Minister's attention the fact that some form of acceptance of the sense, if not the wording, of the amendment would be well received north of the Border. I wish to support the amendment.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for her kind words and for being so helpful in our discussions on the Bill.
I assure the noble Baroness that the Bill will allow us to continue to support activities that help the fight against corruption in all of its forms in developing countries. I shall give the House two examples. In Bangladesh, DfID is working on initiatives that are
designed to improve budgetary processes and accounting practices in ministries, on strengthening parliamentary committees and other groups that monitor performance and resource use and on reducing opportunities for corruption. The sum of £2.75 million has been granted to support the local chapter of Transparency International--the noble Baroness discussed its work in some detail--to develop "committees of concerned citizens" to act as watchdog groups and to monitor the delivery of public services.In Nigeria, DfID is supporting federal government reform, including targeting resource mismanagement and supporting efforts to improve the integrity of systems at state level. We are also working with the United Nations development programme in Nigeria to provide technical assistance for selected state judges who will hear anti-corruption cases.
I agree that transparency and accountability are important, as is the creation of environments in developing countries which will help business to invest. The Government recognise the need to support developing countries in their efforts to take action in these areas. We believe that the OECD convention on the bribery of foreign officials is a major advance in the fight against corruption.
We are committed to introducing legislation that will give effect to that convention. I am unable at this stage to say when that legislation will be introduced. It is important to remember that there is no link between that legislation and the passage of this Bill. That is especially important in view of the assurances that I gave to the effect that we can continue to support activities that help the fight against corruption. In light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I extend my appreciation to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for supporting the amendment. I am most grateful to the Minister for her response. However, I believe that a criminal justice Bill, which will implement the OECD convention, will be introduced but that it will no longer be introduced during this Session. I therefore do not understand why the Government should have anything to fear from the amendment. It is a shame that the Minister will not agree to it. I shall return to the matter on Third Reading, when we hope to have a more satisfactory reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
European Communities (Finance) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [HL]
5.26 p.m.
Clause 2 [Commencement and transitional provision]:
- Page 2, line 10, at end insert--
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House with this lone amendment, which was most eloquently proposed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. It pursues the issue that I raised on Second Reading. I also apologise for the fact that, due to other engagements, I was unable to attend the debate in Committee.
The amendment would ensure that disabled and elderly people do not lose their more generous travel concessions as a result of the Bill. Those travel concessions provide an essential means of enabling blind or other disabled or elderly people to remain part of their communities, which maintains their physical and mental health and their general well-being.
I ask noble Lords to consider the amendment again because there is evidence that many local authorities have withdrawn their more generous concessionary travel schemes and that others will do so. For instance, although a campaign by Birmingham Focus on Blindness during the summer led to the reinstatement of free travel for blind people for the remainder of the financial year, the lead councillor is concerned about the fact that the lack of adequate funding for concessionary fares for men aged between 60 and 64 may force free travel for blind people to be cut again. That would happen despite the fact that the reinstatement gained huge public support--96 per cent in a telephone poll were in favour.
Another example involves Lancashire county council, which proposes to stop issuing passes to blind people--the pass allows them to travel for a flat 30p fare. In future, blind people will be issued with only the statutory half-price pass for buses.
The Minister said in Committee that a compensation scheme is not necessary. I ask him to reconsider that. The evidence suggests that the extra subsidy in the revenue support grant will be insufficient to cover the costs of introducing the statutory minimum half fare for men aged between 60 and 64.
Would the Minister consider offering a transitional grant to those local authorities that offer more generous concessionary fare schemes and protect disabled and elderly people? That arrangement would be similar to the way in which they were protected by a transitional grant when care in the community was transferred from the then Department of Social Security to local authority social services. If that was offered for only a fixed-term transitional period it would give local authorities time to adjust to the costs of their new duties and prevent cuts being made as a result of budget crises.
Furthermore, would the Minister consider altering the revenue support grant formula to give more money to those local authorities that demonstrate good
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. I declare an interest as a member of Suffolk County Council and as vice-chairman of the Local Government Association transport executive. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has any need to apologise to the House for raising this important issue. Funding for the concessionary scheme and for this additional scheme has concerned us for some time. It was discussed fairly fully during the passage of the Transport Bill and again at Committee stage of this Bill.
We must understand that before the Act which brought in a national scheme, the pattern of provision for local authorities was varied. Some local authorities have now had to find a considerable amount of extra money in order to implement this provision. As a result of representations made in your Lordships' House, among other places, the Government have made available extra money through the rate support grant.
One of the difficulties is that decisions are currently being made about the level of support for future years. At present, it is too early to tell how much the scheme costs. Local authorities report that in some cases the bus operators in their areas simply have not given them the figures. Other local authorities which are bringing in schemes for the first time report that take-up is slow but is rapidly increasing.
We also know that the Association of London Government expects take up of the additional scheme to be very high. Many men who are eligible under the new scheme will still be working. Therefore, the cost will be high. If local authorities with cash-limited budgets have to find extra money for the scheme, they will simply have to spend less on something else. That has given rise to the situation about which we have heard today in which some of the more generous schemes are being withdrawn.
It is also possible that in other areas, local authorities will be forced to reduce the subsidies on buses. We could easily end up with a situation in which we have concessionary fares and fewer buses on which to use them. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government. During the passage of the Transport Act, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave an assurance that the cost to local authorities would be monitored. I should like clarification of how that monitoring will take place. How will local authorities be recompensed if they find that the costs are significantly higher than what the Government estimated?
"( ) Before the making of an order under subsection (1), the appropriate Minister shall set up a scheme to compensate local authorities for the additional costs incurred by them in consequence of the changes in eligibility to receive travel concessions under the provisions of this Act."
5.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page